Re: SETTINGS_PRIORITY_SCHEME | Re: Setting to disable HTTP/2 Priorities

Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au> Tue, 30 July 2019 21:28 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ie@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D32D120046 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Jul 2019 14:28:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.55
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.55 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, TRACKER_ID=0.1, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mzpB5jRcPLLC for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Jul 2019 14:28:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [IPv6:2603:400a:ffff:804:801e:34:0:38]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9199C120159 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Jul 2019 14:28:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1hsZco-0003Jh-4l for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 30 Jul 2019 21:25:38 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2019 21:25:38 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1hsZco-0003Jh-4l@frink.w3.org>
Received: from mimas.w3.org ([2603:400a:ffff:804:801e:34:0:4f]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <phluid61@gmail.com>) id 1hsZck-0003Iv-RI for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 30 Jul 2019 21:25:34 +0000
Received: from mail-io1-f46.google.com ([209.85.166.46]) by mimas.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <phluid61@gmail.com>) id 1hsZch-0000wk-RF for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 30 Jul 2019 21:25:34 +0000
Received: by mail-io1-f46.google.com with SMTP id o9so27962361iom.3 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Tue, 30 Jul 2019 14:25:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=QhpRXapSojRDrDsD1asZodkgK0kGhjLzzEUqzpsDwN4=; b=tMP3k7okH9cIWIp8NAXd5bwXYnkNTgU7+dW0TnAykoZvOJImzEMdbfMjLdVS3Cr8Tm 7LSZHJeKdhmxyquzrcIsd5Npxzln/JGQXLa6Q3+/bvy2JeALjQ6d7HYB5hVOeObKOCTx eW4KjRIzGP+BXri4GafMLWhLmQbfDUpw3+DZDyN1BDZLu8Xlvpy60Skpv6Bk+aYweRSX 73+OmhisMpG53b8XG2RtdsyArxRqOTI/zTrUF2TNc0I/M1J/qMTmDttegHJZk55V9xy8 gTvKCB9tZPmH56k7nDwwmYivgg8w4MVv5PimRv0+tZrij2jISDCyPENibVks8wJNvYDQ tajQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVFUhAwIwrRI/UcLjmUcbsvVRw4e9SnEGnHOqAjc90VHlxg5X2r IBZdaFCveeIdou01XNTd5tVUtbH3CvCRezst4ZA=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzDUDTN4VdvfXgc81Al5zBwA70U5Bult2kXL+o6DSPrmKXi7NqPVXsJQFFY0Q4+giEDx/LKR4BWbrZ6GupvjFk=
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:915a:: with SMTP id y26mr109907766ioq.207.1564521910441; Tue, 30 Jul 2019 14:25:10 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190725191746.GB12596@ubuntu-dmitri> <20190730154809.BBE3412178@welho-filter1.welho.com> <CALGR9oZnKo1JXnxLiKp+04kJeT5Uek3BiCPq=XSq4dG4B3AUBA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALGR9oZnKo1JXnxLiKp+04kJeT5Uek3BiCPq=XSq4dG4B3AUBA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2019 07:24:58 +1000
Message-ID: <CACweHNDChKtVBTzQGctxAFdgZydrOKt8a9oAKrYbbq1JKLFPNg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>
Cc: Kari Hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Dmitri Tikhonov <dtikhonov@litespeedtech.com>, Brad Lassey <lassey@chromium.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b71be4058eeca4ee"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.166.46; envelope-from=phluid61@gmail.com; helo=mail-io1-f46.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-1.203, BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, TRACKER_ID=0.1, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: mimas.w3.org 1hsZch-0000wk-RF 7fee16ae4b03f6f996bebd5517246f28
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: SETTINGS_PRIORITY_SCHEME | Re: Setting to disable HTTP/2 Priorities
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/CACweHNDChKtVBTzQGctxAFdgZydrOKt8a9oAKrYbbq1JKLFPNg@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/36879
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <https://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On Wed., 31 Jul. 2019, 02:56 Lucas Pardue, <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>;
wrote:

> Hi Kari,
>
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 4:52 PM Kari Hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>;
> wrote:
>
>> Why boolean ("ENABLE") ?
>
>
>> I suggests SETTINGS Parameter
>>
>> SETTINGS_PRIORITY_SCHEME
>>
>> with values
>>
>>  • 0             Sender of SETTINGS frame indicates that
>>                  it does not process or send priority
>>                  values
>>
>>  • 1             Sender of SETTINGS frame indicates that
>>                  it process or send RFC7540 priorities
>>
>>  • unknown value (for recipient of SETTINGS frame)
>>
>>                  Sender of SETTINGS frame indicates that
>>                  it is willing process some priority information
>>                  or that it sends some priority information
>>                  (but recipient of SETTINGS frame does
>>                   not recognize these priorities)
>>
>>
>> Default value for SETTINGS_PRIORITY_SCHEME is 1
>> ( RFC7540 priorities aka current HTTP/2 tree priorities).
>>
>> Peer of HTTP/2 connection should send SETTINGS frame
>> with SETTINGS_PRIORITY_SCHEME once
>>
>> Peer of HTTP/2 connection may send second SETTINGS frame
>> with SETTINGS_PRIORITY_SCHEME if it's value is same
>> than which it is received for peer on SETTINGS frame.
>>
>>
>> That is:
>>     Suggest SETTINGS_PRIORITY_SCHEME once
>>     and send SETTINGS_PRIORITY_SCHEME second time
>>     after that when you agreed with peer.
>>
>>
>> That makes SETTINGS_PRIORITY_SCHEME switch to
>> new priority scheme (when that is defined).
>>
>
> Boolean gives us the MVP for moving away from RFC7540 priorities. The
> suggestion to allow also signalling "something else" is valid and has been
> mentioned by some others, thanks for sharing your thoughts.
> My personal concern is that making this too complicated may result in it
> not getting exercised in practice. This, to my mind, includes picking
> something that is a fit for HTTP/3 too.
>
> How would you feel about an an alternative design that uses two settings?
> I.e. one for RFC750 enablement, and another to enable a specific
> prioritisation scheme.
>
> HTTP/3 allows only one SETTINGS frame in each direction, so using that as
> a negotiation mechanism has problems. Boolean unilateral adverts work
> better in that case. We might want to say that HTTP/3 has RFC7540
> priorities always default to disabled and not specify a setting in the core
> draft to enable them. Then, using additional boolean settings per scheme
> would allow a more common approach to priority scheme selection across H2
> and H3.
>
> Regards
> Lucas
>


At the risk of bike-shedding, I think calling it "enable" is a bit of an
issue. The setting, as an advertisement of the sender's capability, should
say something like "will ignore" (for disabling 7540 priorities) or "can
understand" (for enabling some other scheme).

Unless we also feel the need to advertise "will not send"?

Cheers
-- 
Matthew Kerwin

>